I thought that trailer was pretty good, a bit hackneyed, particularly with that CGI monster at the end there, but it also looked like glimpses of non-CGI effects. We can hope that this film is a worthy homage to the two previous versions, both great movies.

The director has said of the prequel that it will have a lot of practical but also CG. I believe he said they'd often be combined - which often works VERY well if done carefully. One movie I'm thinking of is Laid to Rest, which did stuff like a combining a dummy actually being stabbed with a live actor - SUPER effective in a couple places. Oftentimes it helps give the motion "weight" when it's combined with real.

Of course, time will tell. Equally importantly to the thing is some incredible creature design, as Rob Bottin and the rest of the crew on the 1981 version is hard to top.

Of course, time will tell. Equally importantly to the thing is some incredible creature design, as Rob Bottin and the rest of the crew on the 1981 version is hard to top.

I'd also like to add that equally important to the creature effects is the mood created in the 1981 version (which I think surpassed Hawkes' version). Carpenter and the acting crew were able to make the isolation and paranoia almost like another character. The creature effects get most of the press when talking about THE THING (1981), and yes, Bottin's work was innovative and impressive, but what really makes the film work is the whole - the story (thanks Campbell), the build-up in mood, and acting framing the fx shots, AND the fx themselves, etc. It just ALL works.

That, sadly, is what I fear may be lacking in just about anything out of Hollywood these days...too much emphasis on fx with no mood to capitalize on the audience reaction to those effects.

The director has said of the prequel that it will have a lot of practical but also CG. I believe he said they'd often be combined - which often works VERY well if done carefully. One movie I'm thinking of is Laid to Rest, which did stuff like a combining a dummy actually being stabbed with a live actor - SUPER effective in a couple places. Oftentimes it helps give the motion "weight" when it's combined with real.

I remember Irreversible and the smashing the guys face in scene from the beginning that was a combination and worked effectively in my opinion. It seems to work best when practical is the staple and cg is used as an assistant to bring it into better focus.

Carpenter and the acting crew were able to make the isolation and paranoia almost like another character. The creature effects get most of the press when talking about THE THING (1981), and yes, Bottin's work was innovative and impressive, but what really makes the film work is the whole - the story (thanks Campbell), the build-up in mood, and acting framing the fx shots, AND the fx themselves, etc. It just ALL works.

That, sadly, is what I fear may be lacking in just about anything out of Hollywood these days...too much emphasis on fx with no mood to capitalize on the audience reaction to those effects.

Shoot, I wanted to comment on both in my last post. The sense of paranoia, uncertainty and who is it, all contribute to the overall weight of the movie. The acting is well done. The characters and their sense of isolation is such a strong staple of it. To be honest, when I was about 5 the effects really bothered me. However, when I saw it again about 5 years ago, the characters and the situation seemed to reign over the screen so much more then any mere effect. The characters and their constant questioning made you feel as though you were there with them. Experiencing the occurrence and wondering how you would react under similar conditions.